RDH

Do you really understand what you are advocating? Reducing or eliminating office holders salaries would make it even more difficult for anyone other than the very rich to hold office, in other words a plutocracy. That is why the Founding Fathers decided to pay office holders. As for amateur states men, would you choose an amateur doctor if you needed heart surgery?

SBW

I think she understands perfectly well what she is advocating and certainly does not need the likes of you to explain it to her. An "amateur" statesman is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for our political class. If you read the documents and writings of the founders the term they used was "citizen legislator". What they had in mind was for a normal citizen to leave the city or the farm, go to Washington and serve the people for a few years and then return to their vocation or profession. Your supposed analogy comparing the amateur statesman to the doctor is inane and infantile.

SBW

Pounder, I agree with you. Ole Rixpix is pasty looking. I hope his physical health is okay. We already know about his mental health. He is a moron and from the looks of his avatar (may not be him) he appears to be a dried up old queen.

Zophman Loc: Northwest

Let's not elect members of congress. Let's appoint them in a lottery! No more campaign BS. No more motivation for lobby groups. No more professional politicians. Hey maybe a few morans go to the hill but I bet it would be fewer than we have now!

SBW

I second that!

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

That's the best solution for that whore house we call Congress I've heard yet. Can't be any worse. :shock: :roll: :lol:

Zophman Loc: Northwest

What we need is an ammendment to the Constitution. Let's get this movement going!

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

Being of sound mind and body my high intellect tells me not to lower myself by joining in the childish displays of personal attacks shown in previous posts. Generalizations such as "All Liberals are stupid" and "All Conservatives are morons" prove nothing and only lower the posters credibility. Can we get back on track and have a rational, civil discussion about the topic?

The U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900+ overseas bases. Here's just 3 of the 130:

Italy - 113 facilities

Japan - 84 facilities

Germany - 56 facilities

Can someone who believes that all of these military bases are necessary to our national defense please explain why?

PrinzEugen Loc: Canada

You are still a moron

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

Considering that our founding fathers originally had no intention of congress being a paid postition I have no problem doing away with their salaries. THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB, so why should they be paid. Only the very rich would hold office? I'm not sure that would be true as I know people who are not rich and could care less about any money they would recieve. They are sick of the way the government is running and would gladly give their time to straighten it out.

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

:thumbup: :thumbup: well stated!

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

Here, here. you could be on to something. :thumbup:

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

And look where it got them. Overrun by low-tech Goths and Vandals, who had no trouble conquering an empire obsessed with other nonsense like gay marriage and Justin Bieber.

Our 'enemies' in the near-and mid-term future are more likely to be like the Viet Cong and mujahaddin then they are the Prussian Army or the Luftwaffe.

Ask the VC how much good a huge, bloated, mis-managed, un-motivated, costly, prone-to-breakdown military force is.

The end of communism dictates an entirely different approach to national defense. We're not about to get into tank battles with the Russians. We need small, speedy, well-trained specialists who can be delivered to a hot spot in hours, do the job, and get out again. We need Seal Teams, not F-35s.

Big defense is the big budget buster. Any of you who bitch about 'too much government spending' and then bitch about reductions in the Defense Department are FOS.

Patriot66 Loc: Minnesota

You know, just for once I wish the gov't would publish (in layman's terms) what each department has for a budget. ie defense, welfare programs, foreign aid, congressional salaries, etc. and then drill down to the sublevel where a person could see what our tax dollars are really being spent on.I am sure it is published somewhere but it is not easily findable for me. Gee I wonder why not?

SBW

The end of Communism? Please tell us when that happened. Today, somewhere between one-fourth and one-third of the world's population is still living under Communism. I do not think I will be asking the Viet Cong for advice on what we should be spending for our military budget. Had the U.S. Military been left to it's own devices and the political class had stayed out of it the VC and North Vietnamese would have been handily defeated. Of that there is no question. Even the VC and NVA military commanders after the war confirmed that.

As for the Roman Empire and what did them in, it certainly was not letting their defenses down because they were obsessed with homosexuality or Justin Beiber(?). Actually, homosexual same sex relationships were quite common in Rome during the Empire days. In fact in some stages of life they were actually condoned. You state that Rome was overrun by "low-tech" Goths and Vandals (don't forget the Huns). Actually one of the primary reasons that these groups were able to eventually defeat Rome in battle was their ADVANCE in technology and tactics. Just one of those advances being the type of horse and saddle they used that was advanced and different, and the way the horse was ridden that allowed them to more effectively use their weapons while on horseback. The Roman army did not adapt quickly enough to the new technology and tactics which was a great contributing cause to their undoing. So, in other words, the Romans had stayed low tech and their enemies had become more high tech, relatively speaking.

Probably without realizing it you eluded to probably what is the real reason that people are having a hard time understanding or agreeing with these drastic cuts in military/defense spending. That is, there seems to be no corollary or parallel reduction in spending for domestic entitlement programs such as welfare, food stamps, etc. It seems they just want to cut the military and grow entitlements. Now I think any reasonable person would agree that there is waste and bloating in our defense budget probably only equaled or possibly exceeded by the waste and bloating in our entitlement programs. So I think people would be more relaxed at viewing reasonable proposed cuts in the defense budget if they are seeing equal cuts in entitlements. But, of course, all this is just so much patter because those entitlements will be of no use unless we have a strong defense.

Oh, one other thing just for you. Here is a link to information about homosexuality in the Roman Empire. I suspect you might get some vicarious thrill by reading about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome